United States: The Fate Of Demand Response Hangs In The Balance

Last Updated: January 30 2015
Article by Kenneth W. Irvin, Gregory K. Lawrence, Natalie Mitchell and Lamiya Rahman

Most Read Contributor in United States, December 2018

The Justices of the United States Supreme Court are not strangers to the retail versus wholesale distinction that often plagues FERC's regulations. Indeed, on January 12, 2015 they heard arguments in Oneok v. Learjet regarding this very question. Three days later, on January 15, 2015, the Solicitor General, on behalf of FERC, filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in FERC v. EPSA regarding FERC's jurisdiction to regulate ISO/RTO demand response programs. Will the Justices take FERC up on its request to argue the wholesale versus retail distinction in the context of demand response? As the Magic 8 Ball® counsels "reply hazy, try again."

Recall, on May 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit vacated FERC's Order No. 745 regarding demand response. The D.C. Circuit did not defer to the agency's determination and held that FERC acted beyond its jurisdictional authority in issuing Order No. 745 because it infringed on the exclusive jurisdiction of the states to regulate the retail electricity market and was arbitrarily and capriciously implemented without a response to the dissenting comments that Order No. 745 would result in unjust and discriminatory rates. FERC sought en banc review of the D.C. Circuit decision, but was denied.1

The validity of FERC's demand response program has wide ranging implications for the ISOs/RTOs, many of whom are faced with questions from participants. FirstEnergy Service Company was among the first to step forward seeking clarification, filing a complaint with FERC requesting that PJM amend its tariff to remove its demand response provisions, among other things. The New England Power Generators Association followed suit soon afterward, requesting FERC to exclude demand response resources from ISO-NE's February 2015 forward capacity auction and tariff provisions. In sum, market participants have exercised various avenues to pursue much needed clarification going forward.

Petition for Certiorari

In arguing that the Court should grant certiorari, the Solicitor General contends that this case is easily resolved through the application of step one in the Chevron framework, meaning the statutory language is unambiguous: "the Rule applies only to demand-response providers who directly participate in wholesale markets by seeking payments from wholesale-market operators that are recouped by adjusting the wholesale rate."2 Not only does the Solicitor General allege that the D.C. Circuit misapplied principles of agency deference, they further claim that the court "seriously misinterpreted the FPA."3 While acknowledging that Section 824(b)(1) of the FPA reserves the regulation of retail transactions to the states, the Solicitor General draws a fine line, arguing that it is the "sale" of electric energy that is reserved, and nothing else.4 And, since the D.C. Circuit acknowledged that demand response is not a sale, that statutory limitation has no application in the present case.5

The Solicitor General further argued that should the Court determine that the FPA is ambiguous, it should defer to the agency's reasonable interpretation.6 Interestingly, the Solicitor General chose not argue the D.C. Circuit's assertion that Order No. 745 also was arbitrary and capricious. Instead, the Solicitor General asserted that the D.C. Circuit's determination that FERC Order No. 745 was arbitrary and capricious did "not pose any jurisdictional or prudential barrier to the Court's consideration" of the case.7

Lastly, emphasizing the need for review, the Solicitor General stressed: (1) the critical role that demand response plays in the electricity market;8 (2) Third and Fourth Circuit precedent striking down state laws that effectively set the rate of sales in wholesale-market auctions, concluding that they were field preempted;9 and (3) the fact that the D.C. Circuit's decision is unlikely to be reviewed by another court because the FPA expressly allows petitions for review to be filed in the D.C. Circuit.10

The Status of Demand Response in PJM

As we have previously noted, EPSA technically only addresses the energy markets; yet, the decision casts a shadow of uncertainty on FERC's jurisdiction over demand response in the capacity markets. Two ongoing proceedings filed by FirstEnergy Service Company and the New England Power Generators Association call on FERC to determine the status of demand response participation in PJM's and ISO-NE's capacity markets, respectively.

In the meantime, PJM has made an effort to minimize the risk that EPSA's unsettled status may distort the results of its upcoming May 2015 RPM Base Residual Auction or open it up to legal challenges that would require PJM to re-run the auction. On January 14, 2015, PJM filed with FERC proposed tariff revisions that would go into effect only in the event the Supreme Court denies FERC's petition for certiorari. These "stop-gap" rules present a new demand-side commitment model that aims to preserve the demand- and price-reduction benefits of demand response participation in RPM, while keeping within EPSA's jurisdictional limits.

Specifically, PJM's tariff revisions propose the following:

  • Removing existing provisions in the PJM Tariff and RAA that currently provide for supply-side Demand Resource participation (pending a future filing to restore or address such provisions); and
  • Adding new provisions permitting LSEs or other wholesale entities to bid demand-side reductions, in the form of Wholesale Load Reductions and Wholesale Energy Efficiency Loads, from the 2015 Base Residual Auction onwards. These load reductions would cause a leftward shift of the VRR curve, reducing the amount of capacity PJM would have to procure and resulting in a lower clearing price.

Notably, the proposed rules retain EPSA's retail versus wholesale distinction by permitting only wholesale entities to submit load reduction bids. PJM would leave it to the LSEs, retail customers, and states to determine how retail end-users ultimately would be compensated for the reduction in their electricity consumption that underlies the LSEs' load reductions. Moreover, under the revised rules, PJM would not compensate LSEs as it would supply-side generation; instead, cleared wholesale load reductions would result in reductions to the LSE's capacity obligations and associated capacity charges. LSEs would still be on the hook for complying with their load reductions, however, and would be subject to measurement and verification requirements and compliance charges for non-performance.

PJM proposes that the revised tariffs become effective April 1, 2015, and only in the event the Supreme Court denies certiorari in EPSA. If the Commission accepts the revisions before the Supreme Court has acted, PJM requests that the Commission suspend the effective date for five days to permit PJM to submit a motion for continued suspension until such time as the Supreme Court has acted. If the Supreme Court does not make a decision on the petition for certiorari as the Base Residual Auction approaches, PJM would continue to operate under its existing demand response rules.

In its filing, PJM emphasizes that its proposed revisions would not alter capacity commitments or compensation from previous auctions. Going forward, PJM's "stop-gap" rules also are not intended to be set in stone, but rather to provide a way for demand response to continue to participate in this year's Base Residual Auction despite its shaky status. In its own words, PJM recognizes that because "determining the overall future of demand response . . . may require Commission action of nationwide scope," the revisions are "not intended to foreclose, either legally or practically, the Commission's consideration of the larger issues that EPSA may raise."11

FERC's View

Former FERC Chairman Jon Wellinghoff exuded confidence recently regarding FERC's petition for certiorari, stating: "[i]f the Supreme Court takes this case, we're going to win . . . . We, in fact, will win this hands down."12 Notably, the Supreme Court has historically given petitions for certiorari submitted by the Solicitor General a close review, granting certiorari in a higher number of cases submitted by the government than private petitioners.13

In the event that certiorari is denied, and without a legislative solution, FERC will review PJM's pending tariff proposal and, separately, may endeavor to: (1) revise its demand response regulation consistent with a narrow reading of the D.C. Circuit's decision under which the court only invalidated "FERC's authority to regulate the level of compensation paid by wholesale-market operators to demand-response providers in energy markets;"14 and (2) revise the compensation structure to address Commissioner Moeller's dissenting arguments.15

Future Filings to Look For

EPSA's response is due February 17, 2015, along with all amicus briefs. The Supreme Court's decision on whether to grant the petition will likely be issued in the spring or early summer of 2015. This means that if certiorari is granted, we will not see a decision until spring or summer of 2016. While this seems a long way off, the lasting impacts of the removal of demand response from the market may prove worth the wait.


1. Over the last few months, various supporters and opponents of demand response have weighed in on FERC's jurisdiction. Last November, Senator Heinrich (D-N.M.) introduced a bill (S. 2947) clarifying that FERC has the authority to promote demand response by amending the FPA to state that FERC "may prescribe just, reasonable, and not unduly discriminatory or preferential terms, conditions, and compensation applicable to wholesale demand-response resource participation in organized wholesale energy, capacity, and ancillary service markets."

2. Petition at 15 (citations omitted).

3. Id. at 18.

4. Id. at 22 (citation omitted).

5. Id. (citation omitted).

6. Id. at 28.

7. Id. at 35.

8. Id. at 30 (citation omitted). In the webinar referenced infra, Commissioner Wellinghoff asserted that in PJM, in 2013/2014 alone, demand response saved $11.8 million.

9. Id. at 26 (citing PPL EnergyPlus, LLC v. Nazarian, 753 F.3d 467 (4th Cir. 2014), petition for cert. filed, No. 14-614, No. 14-623 (Nov. 25 & 26, 2014); PPL EnergyPlus, LLC v. Solomon, 766 F.3d 241 (3d Cir. 2014), petition for cert. filed, No. 14-634, No. 14-694 (Nov. 26, 2014 & Dec. 10, 2014).

10. Id. at 19 (citation omitted).

11. PJM Tariff Revision, Docket No. ER15-852 at 12. Comments to PJM's filings are due February 4, 2015.

12. Comments made during a webinar hosted by Advanced Energy Economy.

13. Hannah Northey, White House Seeks Supreme Court Review of Demand Response Case, E&E Publishing, LLC (January 16, 2015), http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060011831. Commissioner Wellinghoff asserted that the approval rate is as high as 50 percent.

14. Petition at 29.

15. Id. at 35-36.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions